> options that we have to mitigate the effects.

You'd have to admit that there are significant effects first. And you'd probably have to admit that they're going to get worse. And you'd have to expect that some mitigation is going to be effective.

All of which are a tall order at this point. We're still talking about buying a new car just because, or flying off to some far off land just for fun. "The news" is not going to get serious about this until we do. In the meantime, it'll be catchy headlines and clickbait as usual.

> yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe.

The solution to climate change is very cheap and simple. It is a carbon tax. It is also not difficult to implement at all and will cause only modest inflation.

However, the oil industry is a huge influence on governments all over the world and will throw everything at preventing this from happening.

Imagine for a moment that all of the carbon taxes were directed to subsidize EV and solar. All if us would be driving cheap EVs and getting 90% of our electricity from solar sources.

Carbon tax, the ultimate inflation booster.

As if global crop failure will not be a recipe for inflation

Wondering what your approach is to convince Nigerians and Indians on including a carbon tax and making their struggle into the middle class even more expensive :)

Ooh gotcha! I am stumped.

Indians already pay some of the highest fuel sales tax. And United states has some of the cheapest gasoline rates.

https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/diu/story/nearly-two-third-of-...

If you are concerned about equity, then high carbon footprint countries can transfer the carbon tax revenue to low carbon footprint countries.

What mitigations are there that do not target greenhouse gas emissions, how could those be simpler or cheaper than what we already know to do? Serious question!

I don't think the point is "simpler or cheaper", I think the point is that, say, widespread famine under our current production regime is inevitable. Let's talk about this now, so we can at least do SOMETHING about it, instead of being caught flat-footed when it happens and having no options left.

Or continued serious drought, or climate migration, or massive heat die-offs, etc. Better to face reality and prepare SOME kind of response, and the earlier we do, the better we can mitigate it.

But its happening already right now, it will just become very much worse over the next three to six generations.. it is also clear what we would need to mitigate right now.. not doing it is robbing us of any future options.

But I'm still wanting and waiting to here just one concrete option (which if not simpler nor cheaper than preventing further greenhouse gas emissions I'm not sure why we would want to do those then at all) that could help the e.g. surely unavoidable famine problem that we will encounter if world cements its path towards 3-4°C? There is just none even imaginable..

> Or continued serious drought, or climate migration, or massive heat die-offs, etc.

We know these all will happen together?

Humanity hasn't been good at multigenerational projects for some time.

Well if I've learned anything from the tech industry,maybe we need more Scrum Masters in politics /s

Generally it seems those kind of concerted efforts are more easily accomplished under dictatorships rather than in democracies.

I actually disagree, I think we’re conflating dictatorships and social cohesion. Concerted efforts have functioned better under social cohesion(the NHS, social security, etc), but social cohesion isn’t valuable in a modern system because it’s not an efficient use of labor (think: young people leaving their extended families for work elsewhere, not inheriting family farms and businesses which are then bought by conglomerates).

Planning for predictable disasters and response are not things we prioritize. Shock is an acceptable repeated response to catastrophic failures, quarterly thinking traps, growth assumptions. Multigenerational projects have no chance, we cant even get a decade of continuity.

We fail to plan even for hurricanes adequately or proportionately.

Hurricane disaster response isn’t simply ineffective, it is subject to outside pressures which should never be a part of the process. Governments which intentionally obscure how many deaths have occurred, how costly the damage, all made worse as preventive actions are deemed too costly.

Prevention needs to include building standards which refactor building codes to survive the conditions of their particular environment.

Zoning, preventing new construction in areas which need to be rebuilt every time hurricane knocks them over.

Insurance companies pressure local governments and organizations to score category 5 hurricanes as 4 to avoid paying out their customers. Governments overly concerned with minimizing the damage in order to hide incompetence and save face.

Developers charm local, state, and federal officials to keep building costs low and keep producing structures which are cheaply made and begin to fall apart the minute they are finished being built.

Developers who discourage or minimize transparency concerning risks.

People have their dream homes built believing they will last longer than a 30 year mortgage when in reality these homes will need significant interventions within 10 years.

Often the dialog prioritizes who is at fault before and above actually fixing or responding to the events and helping the people effected.

There is a time for blame and a time for action. When and directly after a disaster is the time for action, blame must be analyzed during response, post mortem must taken seriously, organizations, governments, and corporations must be held to account once those affected are relieved, stabilized.

Blame however is usually addressed during the crisis this allows the framing to be controlled by private interests.

One problem that must be overcome in the US are inappropriate cabinet departments. We saw many examples of this during the pandemic. Some goals are too important to have leadership that is subject to change every 4-8 years. Some departments must be shielded from administration instability issues.

Reactive approaches to a crisis are expensive, more expensive than adequate planning. Certain areas in Florida are repeatedly rebuilt at great cost, costs which could be much lower when proactive planning is prioritized equally with response.

Bad at response and no planning seem to be accepted as too ingrained to change. This is not of course true.